No. 23-7073

James L. Miller v. Scott S. Harris, Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-03-26
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: administrative-law civil-procedure due-process patent-eligibility standing takings-clause
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw
Latest Conference: 2024-05-30 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the government's denial of a patent application for a new invention violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : A WITTER STATES _ 3 ___ PET TioW FOR AWRIT OF LERTIMAL 51 Orden tdiialde i 8 bh Ket (Anek.) ¥ex4 530, 1 Appendh-L, 03 3b,7 89, 2 lin! 1 Bock ext ~ 44, i Hope Wi-L. 03,39. oC, bathe 1X 7 ome in fippe. Mix Lp 1A ety i Ie, oxt 59 ab 201 18-0 FQ09G=-PSJPR, thy, Dock ex? b-15, fn Anpeddix| . Blut 3 Fed) Mig tf — Cis! Bathe 80 WajFPQ"93-C Ur 199 41 AB-FS. ell “Sevengl Aelone” 408 “Submitted "with “abd . 271 Uk 50 e Col A Ape MADRAS; be 1ST Hop orld Xe i f3,2h 281 53,9 COR Aol 14+ BOSE) = 1-15. Spy Bopadite 1. Ph S4,Sb, é . . 7 | ) THE SWMENE CouRT 7 COB, dye /256562 -—L.1, hy Aopen XL 08, 529 21 monte” of the Petition) For a Wary ab bortianarl Buon oF : 8 a7 7/0} i I?) wt IS-I, 3° 3 up tt (4b 00 2 Sum Met Ar ML 5518 Baan py 20-5903" Sion, Wh? nQ535%. YL” al BT tgtee! oe "@aMau!t vet tation with a. “Ary” whith wes | 6} nlo dewted by Sat 8, Hants. Le Chek, | 2 usually “prone (7) A” upon 6 Change of govervnel? tre Punoas 271 5% F.2d ae A Pohul? ated Apesad, [tho AV Wa), Alo (2 } \ ; , | : of"

Docket Entries

2024-06-03
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2024-05-14
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024.
2024-05-01
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2024-04-29
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2024-04-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2024.
2024-04-08
Waiver of right of respondent Scott S. Harris to respond filed.
2024-02-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 25, 2024)

Attorneys

James L. Miller
James L. Miller — Petitioner
James L. Miller — Petitioner
Scott S. Harris
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent